Derby’s case dismissed!

[wellbeaten-the-owl]

13 hours ago, Manwë said:

 

Of course we didn't.  It was valued at around £22m in the accounts before IIRC, our Heads of Terms document said it'd be "no less than £37.5m" and it sold for £60m..

 

No inflation there at all.  

 

I'm expecting Chansiri to be getting calls from Homes Under the Hammer about now.

The written reasoning for Derby are out and makes interesting reading on how stadium values are arrived at.

 

The case against Derby looks bro have been a joke and Derby fans have every right to be furious with EFL.

 

Middlesbrough again mentioned and their threat of legal action against EFL which would only be dropped on condition EFL charged Derby!

 

EFLs whole case built on "independent_ valuation of pride park by a guy with ZERO experience in valuing football stadia.  

 

In Derby's case EFL proceedings have been a costly joke which each member club has to ultimately foot the legal fees for.  

[Plonk]

7 hours ago, wellbeaten-the-owl said:

The written reasoning for Derby are out and makes interesting reading on how stadium values are arrived at.

 

The case against Derby looks bro have been a joke and Derby fans have every right to be furious with EFL.

 

Middlesbrough again mentioned and their threat of legal action against EFL which would only be dropped on condition EFL charged Derby!

 

EFLs whole case built on "independent_ valuation of pride park by a guy with ZERO experience in valuing football stadia.  

 

In Derby's case EFL proceedings have been a costly joke which each member club has to ultimately foot the legal fees for.  

Not read the full thread. What were the reasons for the not guilty in summary?

[Athelwulf]

11 hours ago, the monk said:

Do you flap and panic most days ?

 

I didn't used to, largely because I naturally assumed that after gleaning 4 wins from 23 games Monk would get his marching orders.

 

My assumptions were misplaced.

 

What at other clubs would lead to instant dismissal, at this club is given a vote of confidence.

 

Mass delusion seems to have descended on this club's fanbase, or a significant section of it if the contributions to this site are anything to go by.

 

Marc_Degryse has good reason to flap, and frankly so have we all.

 

We're staring down a barrel, and the consequences of relegation would be heinous.

[Guest Mcguigan]

12 hours ago, OwlBiSeeinThi said:

Sorry. My point was, what was the punishment at the time of our breach. From what I can gather in the findings it was not clear if it was points deduction, if so how many, a fine if so how much. I think the club were seeking clarification before committing to the stadium sale.

Our breach, 15/16 - 17/18 accounting period, coincided with Birmingham City's. They were deducted 9 points for combined losses of £48m. 

 

Without the stadium sale included into 17/18 accounts, we had combined losses of £66m for the same period. I don't think we required clarification from the EFL what was on the horizon and it would definitely be more than a fine.

 

The combined losses for 15/16 (-£9m) & 16/17 (-£20m) meant we'd already failed tests 1 and 2 of the P&S rules, hence the embargo. I find it hard to believe that we were seeking clarification what punishment adding another £36m loss for 17/18 season would result in and that was why we were late selling the stadium.

 

Chansiri or his clubs advisors got it wrong, massively. Either through incompetence or arrogance they got it wrong. 

[wellbeaten-the-owl]

2 hours ago, Plonk said:

Not read the full thread. What were the reasons for the not guilty in summary?

In summary did nothing wrong.

Got the ground valued by a highly reputable surveyor (JLL) the £81.1m being safety in range of reasonable valuations.  Whole case under cloud of Middlesbrough legal action against EFL which was only dropped in condition that EFL charged Derby

 

Also found their amortisation policy for players fully compliant with accounting standards.  Basically they look at each player individually and take in to account on an individual basis whether they intend to sell the players before their contract expires.

 

On the ground valuation the EFLs case was based on a £50m valuation they paid for.  This valuation was flawed based on the assumptions used.

 

For example a key determinent was the "cost per seat" calc in comparison to other stadia.

 

TheEFL guy was using grounds such as Morecambe's and certain rugby league grounds as his comparison completely ignoring bfact those had 50% terraced stands so capacity not comparable.

[alan48]

I dont think the masses are deluded at all . We aint gonna shift Chansiri until he decides on another playtime venture and Monk seems to have doffed his cap sufficiently to ensure at least another season at the club .

We can continue to bleat on about the good old days and hope that they may return one day but in the meantime , on the whole , most  , Wenesdayites are stoic and realistic and will continue to support the club whilst recognising and enduring the lack of quality on the field .

Whats the alternative ? Go shopping on a saturday afternoon or pop into somewhere cosy in S 2 ? No thanks . Like most of our 'deluded ' masses I'll stick with the crap we,ve got .

[OwlBiSeeinThi]

52 minutes ago, Mcguigan said:

Our breach, 15/16 - 17/18 accounting period, coincided with Birmingham City's. They were deducted 9 points for combined losses of £48m. 

 

Without the stadium sale included into 17/18 accounts, we had combined losses of £66m for the same period. I don't think we required clarification from the EFL what was on the horizon and it would definitely be more than a fine.

 

The combined losses for 15/16 (-£9m) & 16/17 (-£20m) meant we'd already failed tests 1 and 2 of the P&S rules, hence the embargo. I find it hard to believe that we were seeking clarification what punishment adding another £36m loss for 17/18 season would result in and that was why we were late selling the stadium.

 

Chansiri or his clubs advisors got it wrong, massively. Either through incompetence or arrogance they got it wrong. 

All you say is factual, but when I read the report it was clear to me that clarification was being sought by the club.

I agree our due diligence should have been done on the stadium sale in a more timely manner and DC and Co really dropped the ball, but the EFL could also have been more transparent which may have resulted in a different outcome.

 

A shambles on both sides.

Edited August 27, 2020 by OwlBiSeeinThi

[Guest Mcguigan]

3 minutes ago, OwlBiSeeinThi said:

All you say is factual, but when I read the report it was clear to me that clarification was being sought by the club.

I agree our due diligence should have been done on the stadium sale in a mire timely manner and DC and Co really dropped the ball, but the EFL could also have been more transparent which may have resulted in a different outcome.

 

A shambles on both sides.

Then the people who are running our club are more inept than I thought.

 

I'm thinking of robbing a bank but I'll need clarification on my punishment first before I do. A fine, I'll crack on. Jail, I won't bother.

[room0035]

10 minutes ago, alan48 said:

I dont think the masses are deluded at all . We aint gonna shift Chansiri until he decides on another playtime venture and Monk seems to have doffed his cap sufficiently to ensure at least another season at the club .

We can continue to bleat on about the good old days and hope that they may return one day but in the meantime , on the whole , most  , Wenesdayites are stoic and realistic and will continue to support the club whilst recognising and enduring the lack of quality on the field .

Whats the alternative ? Go shopping on a saturday afternoon or pop into somewhere cosy in S 2 ? No thanks . Like most of our 'deluded ' masses I'll stick with the crap we,ve got .

What we will see over the next 6 months is if DC does have any money, we keep being told he has this great wealth, but cannot spend it because of the rules then we have some tin pot scheme like a 10 year future season ticket, that does not bring in enough to pay 1 players salary for the year. 

 

With no income from the fans and only the merchandise which will probably arrive around October as normal, DC is paying all the bills, it will be interest to see if all the players we need arrive or we have the tried and tested excuses for players not coming in and we basically have to start with what we have and if that is the case the season is going to be over very early.

 

As for the Derby and SWFC cases the difference between the two is simple for me, one got all the documentation done on time, paid for the transaction, filed all the documents with the relevant government departs and paid all the taxes. The other one 9 months after the transaction was meant to have happened was talking about breaking the P&S limits, he used a company that did not exist at the time of the transaction (I know in law you can do this but for the layman it looks dodgy) and if we check the latest account that are now overdue for filing (the 2nd time in 2 years) will the £60m payment for the stadium had been paid or more likely will it still be showing as unpaid debtor.

 

[OwlBiSeeinThi]

5 minutes ago, Mcguigan said:

Then the people who are running our club are more inept than I thought.

 

I'm thinking of robbing a bank but I'll need clarification on my punishment first before I do. A fine, I'll crack on. Jail, I won't bother.

Totally missing the point.

 

Yes the club were at best naive, at worst incompetent in the handling of this. But surely you understand that change of ownership of such a large asset as the stadium carries risks and is an action of last resort and avoided by most clubs at all costs (rightly in IMO). Firstly for the sake of the club and secondly, for the complexity down the line when the landscape changes again.

I don't believe he really wanted to sell the stadium hence the ambivalent approach to due diligence.

 

Also the fact is there was no precedent set for breaching P&S by such a degree at that time, we entered uncharted territory.

Had it been clearly stipulated it was 12 points we may well have just taken it in 18/19 as it had little effect on our position, then sold players to balance the books.

 

Because it wasn't clear, could we risk multi year embargoes, possible instant relegation or even expulsion from the EFL?

 

The EFL as a governing body were lacking in maturity with regard to robust policy, processes and enforcement rules. They have since put in place these procedures, but that didn't help us at the time did it?

 

The bottom line is we shouldn't have let our losses reach such cataclysmic proportions in the first place by stockpiling expensive player contracts. I'm hoping this lesson has been learnt, albeit the hard way.

 

Just have a think for a minute whilst you plan your next bank job.

[Roscoe P. Coltrane]

They were on about Derby on talksport earlier

Wednesdayite texted in about us

Simon Jordan ripped in saying totally different cases and we were caught bang to rights.

[Birstall Owl]

4 hours ago, The_Limit_Owl said:

So Gibson is the puppet master and the EFL have to dance to his tune?

 

So Gibson will sue the EFL unless Derby are charged with something, anything!

 

I get fairness in football but what an odious little man Gibson is coming across as.

 

That's what happens when you blow you failure payments.

[room0035]

7 minutes ago, The_Limit_Owl said:

True!

 

Mardy little Teesside troglodyte!

Indeed but he saw Woodgate was not working and instead brought in an experienced championship manager to save them.

 

Reverse that to this season Monk is not working how long do you think DC will leave it before making a change or do you think we will be relegated by that point.

[sherlyegg]

2 hours ago, room0035 said:

As for the Derby and SWFC cases the difference between the two is simple for me,

You ought to have called the EFL and told em not to bother charging derby, you could have saved em a few bob.

 

[Crewton Ram]

Like Wellbeaten has said, some of the detail in the full Commission report of their decision on Derby is staggering and shows a level of rank incompetence at the EFL that many may have suspected, but which is still astonishing.

 

It appears that, when Middlesbrough wrote to the EFL last year threatening to sue, they included a valuation for Pride Park of between £22-23M - this was done without any consultation with DCFC and without a tour of the stadium. The Commission said they did not find any reason to uphold DCFC's assertion that the EFL were influenced by Boro's threat to sue, but "pull the other one" was my conclusion.

 

The EFL then employed 2 firms to independently value the stadium - the one who valued it at the much publicised EFL figure of £52M (i) hadn't valued a stadium before (ii) didn't visit the stadium and (iii) used a cost per seat for Accrington Stanley's ground as a comparison, which is a nice little ground but is 75% STANDING. I think he must be a Red Dog, because he also said the ground was "bog standard" and if rebuilt we'd only need a 15,000 capacity stadium because we only half fill it . The other firm they engaged valued it at £2M more than the price it was sold for, and the Commission found their valuation 'fair market value'. 

 

Will the club sue the EFL? My gut feeling is that they might well say to the EFL "drop any thoughts of appealing or bringing fresh charges and we'll call it quits" but part of me hopes they do sue both the EFL and Steve Gibson/Boro, and any other club owner/executive who's been slandering the club over the past 18 months.

[room0035]

10 minutes ago, The_Limit_Owl said:

 

I'm no Monk fan at all but it's been clear from when he first came to S6 that he wanted his own team in, DC being the loyal guy he is, is right to give Monk the benefit of the doubt by allowing him to bring his chosen team in, DC has funded that (apparently he's skint though!) and he's got Monk's coaching staff in, let's see what happens.

 

Oh, and Gibson stood by Woodgate for longer than he should, you do know that they very nearly got relegated don't you?

 

 

Indeed but they didn't get relegated when the decision was needed it was made, I don't have the same trust in DC. 

 

But clearly what's another £5-10m waste on Monk, his coaching staff and his new signing when you have already wasted close to £150m to be worse than when you bought the club.

[Guest Mcguigan]

3 hours ago, OwlBiSeeinThi said:

Totally missing the point.

 

Yes the club were at best naive, at worst incompetent in the handling of this. But surely you understand that change of ownership of such a large asset as the stadium carries risks and is an action of last resort and avoided by most clubs at all costs (rightly in IMO). Firstly for the sake of the club and secondly, for the complexity down the line when the landscape changes again.

I don't believe he really wanted to sell the stadium hence the ambivalent approach to due diligence.

 

Also the fact is there was no precedent set for breaching P&S by such a degree at that time, we entered uncharted territory.

Had it been clearly stipulated it was 12 points we may well have just taken it in 18/19 as it had little effect on our position, then sold players to balance the books.

 

Because it wasn't clear, could we risk multi year embargoes, possible instant relegation or even expulsion from the EFL?

 

The EFL as a governing body were lacking in maturity with regard to robust policy, processes and enforcement rules. They have since put in place these procedures, but that didn't help us at the time did it?

 

The bottom line is we shouldn't have let our losses reach such cataclysmic proportions in the first place by stockpiling expensive player contracts. I'm hoping this lesson has been learnt, albeit the hard way.

 

Just have a think for a minute whilst you plan your next bank job.

Think I'll leave this one here. 

 

Clearly the point is missed on me.

 

Just have a think though about the players we could have sold to balance the gaping hole in our finances. You might be struggling.

Edited August 27, 2020 by Mcguigan

[Sheff74]

14 hours ago, sherlyegg said:

 

 

Maguire...

“It does seem a slightly complex ruling by the appeals committee"

 

Maquire needs to read that section of the report again then. The Heads of Terms document was not completed and signed within the required period. So the sale could not included.

[OwlBiSeeinThi]

2 hours ago, Mcguigan said:

Think I'll leave this one here. 

 

Clearly the point is missed on me.

 

Just have a think though about the players we could have sold to balance the gaping hole in our finances. You might be struggling.

By your logic it would have reduced the penalty though if the losses were reduced.

[Guest mkowl]

5 hours ago, Crewton Ram said:

Like Wellbeaten has said, some of the detail in the full Commission report of their decision on Derby is staggering and shows a level of rank incompetence at the EFL that many may have suspected, but which is still astonishing.

 

It appears that, when Middlesbrough wrote to the EFL last year threatening to sue, they included a valuation for Pride Park of between £22-23M - this was done without any consultation with DCFC and without a tour of the stadium. The Commission said they did not find any reason to uphold DCFC's assertion that the EFL were influenced by Boro's threat to sue, but "pull the other one" was my conclusion.

 

The EFL then employed 2 firms to independently value the stadium - the one who valued it at the much publicised EFL figure of £52M (i) hadn't valued a stadium before (ii) didn't visit the stadium and (iii) used a cost per seat for Accrington Stanley's ground as a comparison, which is a nice little ground but is 75% STANDING. I think he must be a Red Dog, because he also said the ground was "bog standard" and if rebuilt we'd only need a 15,000 capacity stadium because we only half fill it . The other firm they engaged valued it at £2M more than the price it was sold for, and the Commission found their valuation 'fair market value'. 

 

Will the club sue the EFL? My gut feeling is that they might well say to the EFL "drop any thoughts of appealing or bringing fresh charges and we'll call it quits" but part of me hopes they do sue both the EFL and Steve Gibson/Boro, and any other club owner/executive who's been slandering the club over the past 18 months.

Yep I am glad this has been picked up. The value was called Messenger, I reckon Melinda would have been more credible

 

The independent panel reckoned it could have been 2m higher than Derby actually used